Paññāsikhara wrote:
I would generally aruge that "originally there were no Pitakas", because it appears that the term Pitaka may have been a slightly later usage. It seemed to come about the same time as the nine-limbs (navanga) classification system, and then the twelve-limb.

Can you please say a bit more why do you think this? I mean, I think I read somewhere that navanga is mentioned around 40 times in the sutta pitaka, while pitaka calssification is not, so I'm wondering what does "about the same time" mean - within the last few years of the Buddha's life, within his death and the first council, within 100 years between the first two councils, etc?

Paññāsikhara wrote:
We can get back to the nine / twelve limbs in a moment, but for now, it is perhaps more useful to point out the twelve limb system is going to be more helpful than the nine limb system, because the relationship between vedalla and upadesa to the abhidhamma is much stronger.

Can you please say a bit more about the 12-limb system, its difference from the nine-limb system, time and a source?

Paññāsikhara wrote:
The Sariputra Abhidharma Sastra structurally is very, very close to the Theravada Vibhanga (and a bit of the Dhammasangani) and also the Sarvastivada Dharmaskandhapada Sastra.
...
I'd also like to add that the Vatsiputriyas had several Abhidhammic texts, such as the Lokapannatti Sastra, and the Tikkhandhaka. They may have also used the Sariputra Abhidharma Sastra, too.

Are any of these available in English yet? If not, then where can one find the originals? (I assume these sastras have a particualr classification within Chinese or Sanskrit collections of texts, but I'm not familiar with these)

Paññāsikhara wrote:
We have a couple of Sthaviravada schools say that there was an Abhidharma early on. Namely: Vatsiputriya, Theravada, Sarvastivada, Dharmagupta and Kasyapiya. This is also kind of the order in which they split off from the original schism Sthaviras.
...
One very good argument to explain all this is: Between the first schism (second council) and the time of Asoka (third council), there was a large group of Sthaviras around the area from Mathura - Avanti, east of the old heart of the dispensation, and slightly south too. While they were here, they developed possibly a couple of forms of "abhidharma", which are "about the dharma", and basically forms that were very similar to the Vedallas, and Vibhanga suttas, and also the newer Upadesas. These actual suttas were taught by people like Sariputra, Mahakatyayana, Ananda, etc.

Now, during Asoka's time, when the various groups spread out across India, these Sthavira groups took the proto-type Sariputra Abhidharma with them. Because the Theravada ended up so far away, and likewise the Sarvastivada in Kasmir, they developed rather independently, and bear less similarity over time. In central India, the groups like the Vatsiputriyas and Dharmaguptas maintained more commonality, hence their Sariputra Abhidharma Sastra was used by a couple of schools.

Interesting. Can you recommend some literature on this in English?

Also, Vibhajjavada is often mentioned to refer to Sthaviras that are closer to what later became Theravada, than to Sarvastivadins which were also Sthaviras. And then Vibhajjavada later splits into Theravada and Dharmaguptas and others. Any particular reason why you don't mention Vibhajjavada above? Thanks.

BudSas wrote:
Perhaps Frauwallner and some other Buddhist scholars (I can't remember names) believed that the Abhidhamma Pitaka was not closed at the Third Council (Asoka's time), but new material might still be added to it long after. According to those scholars, the Abhidhamma version we have today was closed anf fixed only before the Commentaries were written/compiled by Ven Buddhaghosa.

The question and debate on the "authenticity" of the Abhidhamma Pitaka continue to exist in may Buddhist forums & circles, and IMHO, we can never have any conclusive answer.

Hi BDS,

Yeah, I agree. I'm hoping though that we'll slowly assemble here many of the relevant ancient quotes which the modern scholars are using to come up with their own interpretations. Then we could decide for ourselves rather than argue about what different scholars think. At least that's what I'm hoping will happen.

BudSas wrote:
I wish one day, the Abhidhamma Collection in the Taisho could be translated into modern languages (English, German, French, ...) so that we could study and compare with the Pali Abhidhamma.

The abhidhamma collection in the Taisho is in fact Sarvastivadin abhidhamma, right? Thanks.

pt1 wrote: The abhidhamma collection in the Taisho is in fact Sarvastivadin abhidhamma, right?

As far as I know, the Abhidhamma Collection (毗曇部, Bidon-bu) of Taisho consists of volumes 26-29 of 38 books of which, 7 books are the Sarvastivadin Abhidhamma. The rest are abhidhamma materials of other schools (mentioned earlier by Paññāsikhara), and commentaries/treaties composed by monks of later periods on various abhidhamma topics.

Thanks. Wow, that really seems like a treasure trove of abhidhamma works. I wish I knew classical Chinese…

For those interested, here's a Wikipedia page which gives a short summary of the Taisho Tripitaka - that's in essence the Chinese Buddhist Canon. Aside from containing abhidhamma works, it also contains a lot more - agamas (near or complete equivalents of Theravadin suttas), vinaya, as well as many mahayana works, etc:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taisho_Tripitaka" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, on which abhidhamma works it contains , this is from Chinese Canon page from buddhanet that BDS provided earlier:

The Chinese Tripitaka contains:

i) The Samgitiparyaya, the Dharmaskandha, the Prajnapti, the Vijnanakaya, the Dhatukaya, the Prakaranapada, the Jnanaprasthana, the Mahavibhasa, the Abhidharma-hrdaya-vyakhya, the Abhiraharmananyanyanusara and the Abhidharmasamayapradipika Sastras of the Sarvastivada school.

ii) Of the works of Vibhajyavadins, it includes the Abhidharma Sastra of Sariputa, which is the only important work that links up the Southern and Northern Abhidharmas.

iii) It also contains the Vimmuttimagga which is a different version of the Pali Visuddhimagga.

iv) It further contains the Sammitiya Sastra of the Vatsiputriya School.

v) The renowned Abhidharmakosa of the third to fourth century which combines the best teachings of the Sarvastivada and Sautrantika schools, and the Satyasiddi Sastra of Harivarman which greatly influenced Chinese Buddhism.

In addition to my questions from a couple of posts before, here are a few more I’d like to ask:

1. Could you please confirm about the authorship of Sarvastivadin abhidhamma books? I mean, perhaps we are comparing apples and oranges here because Theravadin abhidhamma books are ascribed to the Buddha, while Sarvastivadin apparently are not – this comes from a post by Bhante Dhammanando on DSG (#81054):

the authorship of each of the seven books in the Sarvastivadin
Abhidharma Pitaka is attributed not to the Buddha but to one or another of the
early patriarchs of the Sarvastivada school. I don't think they ever claimed
that their Abhidharma was buddhavacana, and indeed their third Basket is most
often called the "Shastra Pitaka", strongly suggesting an origin in the form of
written treatises.

Moreover, for the Sarvastivadins (and Sanskrit-based Buddhist schools in
general) 'abhidharma' didn't mean what 'abhidhamma' means for the Theravada.
'Abhidharma' for the sanskritic schools meant any further discussion of dhammic
topics by bhikkhus after the Buddha's parinibbana. If you look, for example, at
Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosha, you'll see that virtually anything can be an
'abhidharmic' topic for the sanskritic schools. Although aggregates, elements
and sense-bases are a major theme in this work, there are also discussions of
Vinaya minutiae, history, aesthetic theory, and many other themes that a
Theravadin wouldn't see as specifically abhidhammic.

2. On a related matter, I’m a bit confused about the timeline you suggest and the conclusion that all the early schools had only Sariputta abhidharma sastra in common as a sort of a proto-abhidhamma work, and then each school developed additional books on its own as they spread through India in Asoka’s time:

Paññāsikhara wrote:
The Sariputra Abhidharma Sastra structurally is very, very close to the Theravada Vibhanga (and a bit of the Dhammasangani) and also the Sarvastivada Dharmaskandhapada Sastra.
...
One very good argument to explain all this is: Between the first schism (second council) and the time of Asoka (third council), there was a large group of Sthaviras around the area from Mathura - Avanti, east of the old heart of the dispensation, and slightly south too. While they were here, they developed possibly a couple of forms of "abhidharma", which are "about the dharma", and basically forms that were very similar to the Vedallas, and Vibhanga suttas, and also the newer Upadesas. These actual suttas were taught by people like Sariputra, Mahakatyayana, Ananda, etc.

Now, during Asoka's time, when the various groups spread out across India, these Sthavira groups took the proto-type Sariputra Abhidharma with them. Because the Theravada ended up so far away, and likewise the Sarvastivada in Kasmir, they developed rather independently, and bear less similarity over time. In central India, the groups like the Vatsiputriyas and Dharmaguptas maintained more commonality, hence their Sariputra Abhidharma Sastra was used by a couple of schools.

This doesn’t make sense, because, afaik, 7 Theravadin abhidhamma books were already closed at the Third council, so before, or at the time when different schools (notably Sarvastivada) went their separate ways (geographically and philosophically speaking).

Further, the fact that Taisho Tripitaka contains only Abhidharma sastra of Sariputta that's ascribed to Vibhajjavadins (as per Chinese canon page on buddhanet) doesn’t have to mean that this was the only body of abhidhamma works that Vibhajjavadins developed while Sarvastivadins still had geographical contact with them. I mean, an equally valid theory could be that Sarvastivadins took only Dhammasangani and Vibhanga (as embodied in Abhidharma sastra of Sariputta), and eventually discarded (or simply forgot) the rest as their later abhidhamma works developed.

For example, the majority of books I come across on abhidhamma in English likewise deal only with the material from Dhammasangani and Vibhanga, and occasionally a bit from Patthana. The other 4 books from Abhidhamma pitaka are rarely mentioned or just declared too complicated. So, perhaps the situation was exactly the same back then – people took with them only what was simple enough and discarded the rest...

Hi all,
A correction of my statement in one of the previous posts that Sautrantikas rejected abhidhamma outright - Bhante Dhammanando explains (from the same DSG post I quoted above):

This is a common over-simplification. In fact the early Sautrantikas accepted
the Sarvastivadin Abhidharma Pitaka and if you look at a typical Sautrantika
text you will find that it will largely be about Abhidharma. What distinguished
the Sautrantikas was their rejection of certain doctrinal positions (mostly on
matters of ontology) taken in the Mahavibhasa, a late but influential
Sarvastivadin Abhidharma compendium. Since the basis of their rejection was the
Mahavibhasa's perceived incompatibility with the sutras, they acquired the
monicker 'Sautrantika'. But it would be a mistake to think of them as some kind
of separate school with their own monasteries etc. The early Sautrantika was not
a Buddhist sect, but merely a school of interpretation composed of
Sarvastivadins who didn't like the Mahavibhasa; likewise the late Sautrantika
was not a Buddhist sect, but merely a Sarvastivada sub-group whose members
preferred to focus on epistemology (e.g. Dharmakirti) and Buddhist logic (e.g.
Dinnaga) rather than Abhidharma.
...
As for those who *did* "reject the AP outright", there is a mention of such
persons in Buddhaghosa's Atthasalini, but from his description it appears he was
talking about individuals, not Buddhist schools.

Also in the Pali commentaries are a few mentions of schools called the
Suttantikas and Suttavadins, but as nothing is said about their views there's no
way of knowing whether they are identical with the Sautrantikas mentioned above,
nor what their view of the Abhidhamma was.

... please confirm about the authorship of Sarvastivadin abhidhamma books? I mean, perhaps we are comparing apples and oranges here because Theravadin abhidhamma books are ascribed to the Buddha, while Sarvastivadin apparently are not – this comes from a post by Bhante Dhammanando on DSG (#81054) ...

Scroll down to the Section "Sarvastivada Abhidharma" on that page, you will see the listing of 7 books of their Abhidharma, click on each title will give you the link to more detailed information, including the authorship.

pt1 wrote:Hi all,
A correction of my statement in one of the previous posts that Sautrantikas rejected abhidhamma outright - Bhante Dhammanando explains (from the same DSG post I quoted above):

This is a common over-simplification. In fact the early Sautrantikas accepted
the Sarvastivadin Abhidharma Pitaka and if you look at a typical Sautrantika
text you will find that it will largely be about Abhidharma. What distinguished
the Sautrantikas was their rejection of certain doctrinal positions (mostly on
matters of ontology) taken in the Mahavibhasa, a late but influential
Sarvastivadin Abhidharma compendium. Since the basis of their rejection was the
Mahavibhasa's perceived incompatibility with the sutras, they acquired the
monicker 'Sautrantika'. But it would be a mistake to think of them as some kind
of separate school with their own monasteries etc. The early Sautrantika was not
a Buddhist sect, but merely a school of interpretation composed of
Sarvastivadins who didn't like the Mahavibhasa; likewise the late Sautrantika
was not a Buddhist sect, but merely a Sarvastivada sub-group whose members
preferred to focus on epistemology (e.g. Dharmakirti) and Buddhist logic (e.g.
Dinnaga) rather than Abhidharma.
...
As for those who *did* "reject the AP outright", there is a mention of such
persons in Buddhaghosa's Atthasalini, but from his description it appears he was
talking about individuals, not Buddhist schools.

Also in the Pali commentaries are a few mentions of schools called the
Suttantikas and Suttavadins, but as nothing is said about their views there's no
way of knowing whether they are identical with the Sautrantikas mentioned above,
nor what their view of the Abhidhamma was.

Best wishes

Most importantly, the Sautrantikas soon dropped the sarva-asti thesis "existence of dharmas in past, present and future", and became vibhajyavadins who distinguish between what dharmas exist and what do not, eg. "present exists, past and future do not exist".

The Sautrantikas were "Without the Sutras, the trainee is unable to understand the meaning of the Abhidharma", whereas the Vaibhasikas (orthodox Abhidharmika Sarvastivadins basing themselves on the Mahavibhasa) said "Without the Abhidharma, the trainee is unable to understand the meaning of the sutras".

A matter of which is fully explicit and which is not, rather than a complete rejection of one or the other.

My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.

... please confirm about the authorship of Sarvastivadin abhidhamma books? I mean, perhaps we are comparing apples and oranges here because Theravadin abhidhamma books are ascribed to the Buddha, while Sarvastivadin apparently are not – this comes from a post by Bhante Dhammanando on DSG (#81054) ...

Scroll down to the Section "Sarvastivada Abhidharma" on that page, you will see the listing of 7 books of their Abhidharma, click on each title will give you the link to more detailed information, including the authorship.

Or course, we can't just necessarily believe verbatim the authorship attributed by the various schools.
It requires rather more research than that!

My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.

Paññāsikhara wrote:...whereas the Vaibhasikas (orthodox Abhidharmika Sarvastivadins basing themselves on the Mahavibhasa) said "Without the Abhidharma, the trainee is unable to understand the meaning of the sutras".

pt1 wrote:
2. On a related matter, I’m a bit confused about the timeline you suggest and the conclusion that all the early schools had only Sariputta abhidharma sastra in common as a sort of a proto-abhidhamma work, and then each school developed additional books on its own as they spread through India in Asoka’s time:
...
This doesn’t make sense, because, afaik, 7 Theravadin abhidhamma books were already closed at the Third council, so before, or at the time when different schools (notably Sarvastivada) went their separate ways (geographically and philosophically speaking).

Further, the fact that Taisho Tripitaka contains only Abhidharma sastra of Sariputta that's ascribed to Vibhajjavadins (as per Chinese canon page on buddhanet) doesn’t have to mean that this was the only body of abhidhamma works that Vibhajjavadins developed while Sarvastivadins still had geographical contact with them. I mean, an equally valid theory could be that Sarvastivadins took only Dhammasangani and Vibhanga (as embodied in Abhidharma sastra of Sariputta), and eventually discarded (or simply forgot) the rest as their later abhidhamma works developed.

Regards "an equally valid theory ..."
First one would actually have to go and study these texts and their history.
Otherwise we will come up with all sorts of ideas that are pure speculation.

For example, the majority of books I come across on abhidhamma in English likewise deal only with the material from Dhammasangani and Vibhanga, and occasionally a bit from Patthana. The other 4 books from Abhidhamma pitaka are rarely mentioned or just declared too complicated. So, perhaps the situation was exactly the same back then – people took with them only what was simple enough and discarded the rest...

Anyway, please point out if I’m wrong somewhere. Thanks.

I think that making an analogy with the situation in present day English is very misleading.
For a start, the most important of the seven Sarvastivadin Abhidharma sastras is the Jnanaprasthana, which they said was the first, but almost all scholars say is probably the last. This is ostensibly the basis for the Vibhasa sastras.

I wouldn't say that you are "wrong", but it appears that you are now starting to theorize a few things without doing the background study. This is bound to lead to all sorts of inaccurate conclusions.

My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.

Paññāsikhara wrote:...whereas the Vaibhasikas (orthodox Abhidharmika Sarvastivadins basing themselves on the Mahavibhasa) said "Without the Abhidharma, the trainee is unable to understand the meaning of the sutras".

Of course, this is the basic position that marks anyone - be they Theravadin, Sarvastivadin, or whatever - as an Abhidharmika rather than as a Sautrantika.
Similar for much of Mahayana, taking Mahayana sutras as the ultimate criteria.

This was the key situation in Indian Buddhism at that time - What texts are nitartha? What texts are neyartha?
It seems that it was seldom that a school would reject a text or type of literature outright, but rather, they wished to place in as neyartha, and set up some other text as nitartha. This still opens things up for discussion, which I personally appreciate.

Interesting thing is, we are still doing the same right now. But nowadays, many schools will outright reject the literature of other schools, and hence discussion falls into sectarianism, and worse. "Only this is true, all else is false!"

My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: Huifeng's Prajnacara Blog.

BudSas wrote:
Scroll down to the Section "Sarvastivada Abhidharma" on that page, you will see the listing of 7 books of their Abhidharma, click on each title will give you the link to more detailed information, including the authorship.

Thanks BDS.

Paññāsikhara wrote:Haha! Most of those Wiki posts were written by yours truly.

Paññāsikhara wrote:...whereas the Vaibhasikas (orthodox Abhidharmika Sarvastivadins basing themselves on the Mahavibhasa) said "Without the Abhidharma, the trainee is unable to understand the meaning of the sutras".

Having spent a bit of time there, I get a slightly different impression. What's often said is that while there are exceptional people with very clear faculties (little dust in their eyes) that can understand all that needs to be understood just from the suttas, most of us are individuals of blunt faculties who need a lot of explaining and a lot of reminders, and hence we need abhidhamma to clarify things mentioned in the suttas. I can certainly say that this is true in my case.

Paññāsikhara wrote:
Regards "an equally valid theory ..."
First one would actually have to go and study these texts and their history.
Otherwise we will come up with all sorts of ideas that are pure speculation.
...
I think that making an analogy with the situation in present day English is very misleading.
For a start, the most important of the seven Sarvastivadin Abhidharma sastras is the Jnanaprasthana, which they said was the first, but almost all scholars say is probably the last. This is ostensibly the basis for the Vibhasa sastras.

I wouldn't say that you are "wrong", but it appears that you are now starting to theorize a few things without doing the background study. This is bound to lead to all sorts of inaccurate conclusions.

Yeah, you're right, apologies for a bit of needless speculating there on my part.

Still, I'd like to hear you view on the timeline - the fact that theravadin abhidhamma books were closed at the Third council, because from you post I get the feeling that you don't agree with this. Also, if you have time, it'd be great if you can say a bit more about the issues in this earlier post - regarding the timeline of navanga and Pitaka classifications and about the 12-limb system. Thanks!

Best wishes

Last edited by pt1 on Wed Oct 21, 2009 4:04 am, edited 1 time in total.